HHS is claiming that gender-affirming care may radicalize people, and a new report from politically aligned researchers is making that argument. The study, titled “Where the Clinic Meets the Movement: Does Gender Ideology Arm Left-Wing Authoritarian Psychology?” was published by the Manhattan Institute, an organization that leans right. Its authors include Colin Wright, an evolutionary biologist with the institute, and graduate students at Rutgers University.
The report concludes that support for gender-affirming care is tied to “Left-Wing Authoritarianism” and “a willingness to justify political violence.” It frames transgender identity as illegitimate or dangerous. The research was not peer reviewed, and the underlying data and funding details have not been made available. One author says the data will be released “soon,” while Wright says the paper will eventually be submitted to a scientific journal.
The report uses “gender ideology” interchangeably with “gender-affirming care,” which is the medical standard of care for transgender patients. It surveyed around 1,200 adults through a paid online platform, asking whether they support government censorship, aspects of capitalism, and gender-affirming medical care. Respondents were also asked whether they believe violence is justified against Charlie Kirk, assassinated in 2025, President Donald Trump, and Brian Thompson, killed by Luigi Mangione in 2024.
Wright’s Defense
Wright defends the report’s use of the word “may” in the sentence about gender ideology functioning as an ideological accelerant. He says “may” is doing important work in that sentence. He also defended the report’s lack of peer review, saying that does not make it pseudoscience.
Wright said the paper will eventually be submitted to a scientific journal, adding, “the fact that our report has not yet undergone peer review at a journal does not make it pseudoscience.”
He called gender-affirming care “an extremist political movement disguised as a medical guideline.”
The Critics
Experts who spoke to NPR are not convinced. Adrian Shanker, former deputy assistant secretary for health policy under President Joe Biden, said past administrations hired generalist science writing firms, not political ones.
“The department had longstanding contracts with generalist science writing firms. They were not political in any way,” Shanker said.
Liliana Mason, a Johns Hopkins political psychologist, said she would recommend rejecting the paper as a peer reviewer. She said the measures are not well validated and the paper isn’t written in good faith.
The Survey Method
The survey design is central to the dispute. Respondents were asked about their views on gender-affirming care alongside questions about government censorship and aspects of capitalism. They were also asked about violence against specific individuals.
The report’s authors insist their answers can’t be used unless reprinted in full. Wright posted NPR’s questions and his answers on his X account. Other authors declined NPR’s interview requests. HHS did not respond to NPR’s interview request.
The Data Question
The report’s data and funding details remain unpublished. One author says the data will be released “soon.” Wright says the paper will eventually be submitted to a scientific journal.
Critics say the presented data does not support the “ideological accelerant” conclusion. The survey methodology is poorly validated, they argue, and the paper’s framing of gender-affirming care as dangerous is unsupported.
The Political Context
The report comes from the Manhattan Institute, which leans right. Its authors include Wright, an evolutionary biologist, and graduate students at Rutgers University.
The report’s conclusions mirror those conclusions. Support for gender-affirming care is tied to “Left-Wing Authoritarianism” and “a willingness to justify political violence,” according to the report.
The Public Response
The report has drawn attention from critics. Wright’s defense of the paper’s methodology has been widely reported.
The debate over gender-affirming care is likely to continue. The report’s authors say they will submit the paper to a scientific journal. Critics say the evidence is not there.
Where the paper stands
The paper backs narrow rules against direct harm, and is against broad rules that hand the market to the incumbents. Here the analogy holds: when the biggest firms ask to be regulated, the paper asks who those rules would lock out. Licensing regimes and compliance costs only giants can afford are a moat, not a safeguard.
In this case, the “report” is not a report at all but a politicized claim dressed up as science. It was not peer reviewed. Its underlying data and funding details have not been made available. Its survey methodology is poorly validated, its framing of gender-affirming care as dangerous is unsupported, and its authors have declined interviews while defending their work.
The paper wants the evidence to be tested, not asserted. It wants data to be released, not promised “soon.” It wants papers to be submitted to journals, not waved around as settled conclusions. It wants a marketplace where ideas compete on their merits, not on their political pedigrees.
Key Facts
- Report title: “Where the Clinic Meets the Movement: Does Gender Ideology Arm Left-Wing Authoritarian Psychology?”
- Authors: Colin Wright, an evolutionary biologist with the Manhattan Institute; graduate students at Rutgers University
- Survey respondents: Around 1,200 adults
- Survey method: Paid online platform
- Questions covered: Support for gender-affirming medical care, government censorship, aspects of capitalism, violence against Charlie Kirk (assassinated in 2025), President Donald Trump, Brian Thompson (killed by Luigi Mangione in 2024)
- Report was not peer reviewed; underlying data and funding not made available
- Data release: One author says data will be released “soon”
- Paper submission: Wright says the paper will eventually be submitted to a scientific journal
The report’s conclusions are strong. The evidence behind them is weak. That is the core of the dispute. The report’s authors have defended their work. The critics have pushed back.
The facts are on the table. The opinions are clear.
Source material: “What's behind HHS claims that gender-affirming care 'may' radicalize,” NPR.
Get the Notebook.
The day's best stories and every fresh verdict, in plain English, in your inbox by seven. One email a day, no more.